2011 (9) TMI 377 - AT - Service Tax

Cenvat credit claim was in dispute in respect of service tax paid - Mere passing on responsibility to the subordinates shall not serve any purpose of law under the shelter of remand of the matter - appellate authority noticed that there is no reference to registration and type of vehicle used. He had power to call for information when he is Central Excise Officer and also an authority under Finance Act. While he was an appellate authority he has been vested with the power of original authority itself. In such circumstances merely remanding the matter for statistical disposal of the appeal shall shake the confidence of litigants - appeal remanded back to the Appellate authority

Summary

Issues:
1. Dispute over cenvat credit claim of Rs.6,16,799/- for service tax paid.
2. Failure of the appellate authority to scrutinize the claim thoroughly.
3. Expectation of senior officers to decide controversial matters without remanding.
4. Power of the appellate authority to call for information and make reasoned decisions.
5. Remand of the matter for further consideration.
6. Waiver of pre-deposit requirement for the appeal.
7. Disposal of stay application and appeal through remand.
8. Filing of Vakalatnama by the appellant's counsel.

Detailed Analysis:
1. The case involved a dispute regarding a cenvat credit claim of Rs.6,16,799/- for service tax paid on various counts. The appellate authority was approached by the Revenue against the relief granted to the assessee by the adjudicating authority. However, it was noted that the appellate authority failed to thoroughly scrutinize the claim, especially when the Revenue was aggrieved by the decision. The responsibility cannot be merely passed on to subordinates, and it was expected that senior officers should decide controversial matters without the need for remand.

2. The judgment highlighted the importance of senior and matured officers of the department, who, as appellate authorities, possess the power to call for information and make reasoned decisions. The appellate authority, in this case, was vested with the power of the original authority and should have thoroughly examined the details provided by the appellant before deciding on the matter. Merely remanding the case for statistical disposal without proper scrutiny could undermine the confidence of litigants in the justice system.

3. Despite the circumstances, the requirement of pre-deposit for the appeal was waived, and the matter was remanded back to the appellate authority for a fresh hearing. The appellate authority was instructed to consider all details, consult the adjudication record, and evaluate the appellant's pleadings based on the law to pass a reasoned and speaking order. This decision aimed to ensure a fair and thorough consideration of the case.

4. The judgment also addressed procedural aspects, such as the disposal of the stay application and the appeal through remand. Additionally, it was noted that the appellant's counsel had not filed the Vakalatnama but undertook to do so promptly. The appearance of the counsel was duly recorded following the relevant procedural rules, ensuring compliance with the legal requirements for representation before the tribunal.